Reflections on Goalposts

A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.

One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.

My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.

We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.

These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.

The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.

At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.

The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.

This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.

How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.

You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.

Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.

Allyjambo

January 29, 2014 at 16:18

AT’s blog doesn’t have a lot of meat on it, though I doubt he’d post it if he didn’t think it worthwhile and there’s every chance it’s been toned down by the legal people. However it pans out, it doesn’t help TRFC, though it might mean they get rid of him, once and for all, in about 2 years time 😉 after a long, and expensive, legal battle!

Graham Wallace might find he has to face a ‘cash up front’, or security, request from the club’s lawyers for their fees before they enter into any negotiations with Whyte’s people. It all might blow over if Whyte is really only flying a kite, but, if not, it might make Wallace’s plans unworkable, and lead to him bailing out while there’s still money to pay his final salary!

causaludendi

When a floating charge is assigned then typically the debt which is secured by the floating charge will be assigned with it. That’s legalese so to explain.

Let’s begin with the debt. Assume Ted owes the bank £50,000. From the perspective of the bank it has a right to get £50,000 from Ted. This right to payment is an asset of the bank. If the debt is owed in the future the bank might want to make that asset liquid now. Factors might pay the bank for the right to £50,000. The factors are unlikely to pay £50,000 if the debt is due in the future. The factors will deduct something for the risk that Ted won’t pay. and they will deduct something for the interest they could have made if they had not bought the right to payment. So, assume the factors pay £40,000 and the bank assigns the right to payment (owed by Ted) to the factors and – in Scotland as long as the factors notify Ted – the right to payment is transferred. The end result is that the bank has cash now but has lost the right to payment and so can’t sue Ted for the payment. Ted still owes £50,000 though. As a result of assignation Ted owes the £50,000 to the factors. The factors hold the right to payment. Now at no time do the factors extend any finance to Ted. They have not loaned him any money yet Ted legally owes the factors £50,000.

Therefore, to say – as some commentators have – Craig Whyte loaned no money to Rangers so they owe him no money misses the point. Whyte might not have loaned any money but did he acquire a right to payment held by somebody else?

Well, what we do know is that Rangers owed flipping great wadges of cash to the bank. That debt was backed up by a floating charge, a security over the whole asset base of Rangers. If Rangers defaulted and the assets of Rangers were sold the floating charge meant that (broadly and ignoring other securities) the bank would get first cut of the sale proceeds.

Now, a floating charge is also an asset. It is a right (in security) over the assets of the debtor. As an asset it can be traded. However, for the trading of the asset to be worth anything the debt – which the floating charge secures – needs to be transferred along with it.

So, if Ted plc owed the bank £50,000 and the bank is worried that Ted plc will default the bank may have demanded a floating charge over Ted plc’s assets. The bank therefore has two rights: (a) the right to payment owed by Ted plc; and (b) the right to the floating charge over Ted plc’s assets. If the bank wants to make the right to payment liquid it can assign the debt in the manner described above. If there is a floating charge securing that debt the act of assigning the right to payment of the debt will transfer along with it the right to the floating charge. The end result of selling the right to payment will be that the factors end up with both rights: (a) the right to payment (owed by Ted plc); plus (b) the floating charge over Ted plc’s assets.

Alternatively the factors might seek an assignation of the floating charge over Ted plc’s assets – but that charge is useless without the assignation of the debt too. Only an incompetent solicitor would allow a transaction to proceed without ensuring the transfer of both.

So, applying this to the Whyte case. We know that the bank had a floating charge. We know that floating charge has been assigned to Whyte (one of Whyte’s companies). We are assured (by commentators and the administrators) that Whyte has extended no finance to Rangers. However, if no finance has been extended by WHyte to Rangers that does not mean his floating charge is worthless. We don’t know if the right to payment of the debt owed to the bank was assigned to Whyte. If it was, then Whyte will be owed the money from Rangers (unless he has waived the debt) – and has a floating charge to back it up. That will be the case whether Whyte extended any money to Rangers or not. That will be the case whether the bank got a payment from Whyte that matched the total sum owed to it by Rangers or not.

Assume the bank was owed £20 million by Rangers – if Whyte paid the bank £10 million (wherever the money came from) the bank might have agreed to assign the right to payment to Whyte. Rangers still owe £20 million, Whyte is owed the £20 million, the bank has cut its losses.

Of course if the bank was paid the full sum owed to it by Whyte the one thing that does not do is discharge Rangers’ debt. The transaction between Whyte and the bank was a sale and purchase of a right to payment. Only Rangers could pay off the debt (unless Whyte volunteered to make a third party payment on Rangers behalf – which is competent in Scotland).

Those analysing the floating charge therefore need to keep the debt owed by Rangers to the bank; and the transfer of the floating charge (and potential transfer of the debt) clear and distinct in their minds. Without more information it is not possible to say that Whyte’s floating charge is worth nothing (and that is before considering any right of relief Whyte may benefit from in relation to the cautionary obligations (guarantees) owed to Ticketus in relation to Rangers debt to Ticketus).

Registration will commence at 7.45am in The Thornton Suite with the chance for refreshments before the Club Welcome commences the morning’s proceedings, finishing with the opportunity to meet fellow attendees and discuss the morning’s topics before departing.

If you would like the opportunity to attend this exclusive morning, please confirm your name and names of guests attending to Omar Muhyeddeen by Thursday 30 January on 0141 580 8649 or omarmuhyeddeen@rangers.co.uk

Campbellsmoney

January 29, 2014 at 16:28

To “ringfence” cash in the way that Martin Bain did (its called “an arrestment on the dependence”) requires:-

(i) a court action to be raised which, if successful, would give rise to a right to payment; and
(ii) a judge to be persuaded that it is appropriate, even before the court action is decided, for the defender in the court action to be deprived of the use of the cash.

A few years ago, warrants to arrest on the dependence were automatically granted when requested. Not so now. Now it is necessary to convince a judge that it is an appropriate step. This is because an arrestment on the dependence deprives a person of the use of an asset prior to it being established (by a decision of the court) that another party has a right against that party. Such deprivation falls foul of the basic human right (which even companies have apparently) to be entitled to enjoyment of their own assets.

So the pursuer has to show why it is appropriate/fair. That is often done by leading evidence that there is a risk of impending insolvency.

But first of all, a court action needs to be raised – and that costs a bit of cash.

m.c.f.c.

January 29, 2014 at 16:30

Craigie and Tomo

A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain’t satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me

Not The Huddle Malcontent

January 29, 2014 at 16:42

couple of quick questions.

1. How much did RIFC pay for the Albion car park?
2. How many cars does it hold
3. how much is it to park there?

I’ve seen a post suggesting it cost £1.65M, holds 500 cars and charges £7 a time – that means with an average of 25 home games a year, it would take 18 years to recover the initial cost – probably much longer given that

1. there will be rates and maintenance charges
2. no doubt someone has to be paid to collect the £7’s and there will be tax on that too i guess.

seems a strange and wasteful spend of money for a company tight on cash if the above is true

m.c.f.c.

January 29, 2014 at 16:45

scottc says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:37 pm

The ‘tradition’ is that the directors of the opposing team at the first game of the New Year join in the ceremony. This year, that was East Fife
=======================================================================
cheers – you learn something every day – I didn’t hear them mentioned – but I did miss the different tie .

Jack Jarvis

January 29, 2014 at 16:46

m.c.f.c.

We’re on the same side.

Upon re-reading my original post at 11.34 this morning, it is clear that my ham-fisted attempt at irony resulted in your misinterpreting my meaning. Our subsequent discussion have, therefore, been predicated on a complete misunderstanding and I now fully understand the content and tone of your replies, to which I took exception.
To be clear, I was suggesting that, given the recent history between Rangers and their SFA placemen, it was not outwith the bounds of possibility that their current financial predicament could be eased somewhat by additional income from home cup ties/replays/stadium hire, and that we should be outraged, if not surprised if it came to pass.

I was anticipating and warning of the possibility of some form of quantitative easing down Govan way –
I never have been, am not, and never will be guilty of:
“• Naive optimism about the progress of Rangers team/manager in cup competitions ;
• Persistent assumption that Ranger-nomics has not already been performed by insiders on all publicly available data;
• Blythe disregard for recent developments e.g. £200K contractual pay-off to Stockbridge which wipes out the benefit of one cup match.”

Although I am still smarting a little from our contretemps, I am comforted somewhat by the fact that the 34-0 thumbs up for my initial post indicates that my point was not missed by everyone.

My apologies to you m.c.f.c. and to TSFM if my replies in any way veered towards “playing the man”. I was having difficulty remaining restrained and polite in the face of what I perceived to be unwarranted criticism and sarcasm. I do not possess Ecobhoy’s capacity for tolerance and understanding. Those still need a bit of work, as does my writing style.

m.c.f.c.

January 29, 2014 at 16:49

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:42 pm

I’ve seen a post suggesting it cost £1.65M, holds 500 cars and charges £7 a time
=======================================================================
Don’t forget the 100+ places reserved for the squad, staff and hangers-on. didn’t Craig demand £1m/yr, a place in the directors’ box and a secure (very secure) parking space ?

Campbellsmoney

January 29, 2014 at 16:50

causaludendi says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:22 pm
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Yip absolutely – but on your last point – there can’t be a right of relief of any sort here as the guarantor and the chargeholder are different parties.

Castofthousands

January 29, 2014 at 16:56

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:42 pm

“seems a strange and wasteful spend of money for a company tight on cash if the above is true”
——————————
Am I merely speculating that you are intimating that these are the actions of a real estate company rather than one whose core business is sport?

Castofthousands

January 29, 2014 at 17:05

Campbellsmoney says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm

” there can’t be a right of relief of any sort here as the guarantor and the chargeholder are different parties.”
———————————
causaludendi’s reposting of Sam’s detailed explanation was just about fathomable to me. Your retort above (along with other posts) indicate you have an accessible knowledge of such machinations in a way that I will never have. If it isn’t too much trouble could you run that past us again in a way that a relative 5 year old such as myself might unerston?

m.c.f.c.

January 29, 2014 at 17:14

Jack Jarvis says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:46 pm

My apologies to you m.c.f.c. and to TSFM if my replies in any way veered towards “paying the man”. I was having difficulty remaining restrained and polite in the face of what I perceived to be unwarranted criticism and sarcasm. I do not possess Ecobhoy’s capacity for tolerance and understanding. Those still need a bit of work, as does my writing style.
=============================================================================
Jack – my apologies if I have misinterpreted your position and poured on unwarranted criticism and/or sarcasm . It seemed to me that you were heading towards “sustainable business, too big to fail, nothing to see here, move along”. The accounts in October set the course for the finances and there have been no visible structural change – so although bits and bobs have changed, the destination is pretty much determined – give or take a month or two – or a sugar daddy – or a fairy godmother.

I’m sure the SFA will do anything and everything they can to help, but my guess is that three good cup runs are already factored into the balance sheet – and we know how that worked out for Ally last time when his contribution was make or break.

To my mind, the holy grail of getting to ST time just gives the spivs a bit of breathing space and a bit more cash to plunder. Specifically, it does not get them anywhere near the end of next season without a dramatic reduction in burn rate.

The chargeholder is/was Wavetower – so it is/was owed money by Oldco (secured by the floating charge).
The guarantor is/was CW – so he owes money to Ticketus in respect of the money owed by Oldco to Ticketus (which Oldco isn’t paying back to Ticketus).

In certain circumstances (including insolvency) , if you are both a creditor and a debtor of a the same party, you can set the obligations off against each other.

A owes £100 to B
B owes £50 to A.

If B goes into liquidation, A can say to the liquidator of B – I am not paying you £100 because you will not (because of the insolvency) pay me my £50. Instead, A will pay only £50 to B.

Next issue:-

R borrows £10 from T.
C guarantees that £10 to T.
C owes £20 to R.

R goes into liquidation. T demand payment from C. C pays. C is now entitled to claim that £10 back from R ( this is because a guarantor who pays out is entitled to claim the amount paid from the actual debtor (in this case R) – that is a guarantor’s “right of relief”) . But R is in liquidation. So instead of paying the £20 that he owed to R’s liquidator, C will only now pay £10 to R.

But as I originally posted (in extremely brief terms I admit) – that can’t apply here, as the chargeholder (Wavetower) and the guarantor (CW) are not the same person.

In any case in the Oldco liquidation, what this will mean is that CW (if he pays to Ticketus under the guarantee) in effect takes Ticketus’ position as a creditor in Oldco. That would mean both Wavetower (under the originally assigned debt (per Causaludendi’s analysis)) and CW are both creditors (whereas for set off to apply one would have to be a debtor) of Oldco.

However – am I not correct in saying that D&P stated not only that CW/Wavetower advanced no funds to Oldco but that in fact Wavetower were not creditors at all (whether by reason of an assigned debt or otherwise)?

easyJambo

January 29, 2014 at 17:52

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: January 29, 2014 at 4:42 pm

From the accounts:
Heritable property acquisitions consists of the purchasing of the Albion car Park from Lloyds Banking Group for £1.6m and Edmiston House from MIH Group for £0.8m, with a further £0.1m being incurred on internal works on the property.

ecobhoy

1. How much did RIFC pay for the Albion car park?
2. How many cars does it hold
3. how much is it to park there?

I’ve seen a post suggesting it cost £1.65M, holds 500 cars and charges £7 a time – that means with an average of 25 home games a year, it would take 18 years to recover the initial cost – probably much longer given that

1. there will be rates and maintenance charges
2. no doubt someone has to be paid to collect the £7′s and there will be tax on that too i guess.

seems a strange and wasteful spend of money for a company tight on cash if the above is true
==========================================================================
From memory price was £1.5 million + VAT. When it was bought December 2012/January 2013 RIFC had plenty of dosh as the IPO money had just arrived. The lease terms were quite hefty so in one sense it made perfect sense to buy it and increase the revenue stream from parking by cutting-out the lease payments.

However some might think that:

A: Even if the stadium is leased out by the spivs they hold onto the carpark and collect the cash at home games. Pure cash often attracts Spivs. Or maybe they lease back the carpark as well to whatever club is playing on the leased-out Ibrox. Bit of a sickener that the Bears helped buy the carpark out of a lease and could end-up with it back there.

B: The carpark could come in handy when the time eventually comes to sell-up Ibrox completely and move on after whatever club is playing there can no longer afford to rent the ground. Would need to look at an aerial view to see how it fits into the property jigsaw to see if that’s a possibility. It’s been that long since I’ve been there I just can’t remember.

Take the cash in the short term, rent it in the medium term to the club and flog it when the apocalypse happens.

ecobhoy

January 29, 2014 at 18:01

easyJambo says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
January 29, 2014 at 4:42 pm

From the accounts:
Heritable property acquisitions consists of the purchasing of the Albion car Park from Lloyds Banking Group for £1.6m and Edmiston House from MIH Group for £0.8m, with a further £0.1m being incurred on internal works on the property.
=================================================
Edmiston House was where the Megastore was to be moved to and I always wondered if the 1.5 million loan facility from SportsDirect to rangers Retail was to pay for the purchase. But I don’t think anything has actually happened although there are rumbles out asbestos probs – but there always are at Ibrox so who knows.

Danish Pastry

January 29, 2014 at 18:22

I noticed one of the comments on AT’s blog suggested TicketUs had allied themselves with CW on this. It makes a kind of sense — their financial backing against an agreement with CW to let him off the hook if they inherit the proceeds. On the face of it, Whyte has fallen into the deep cow dung and must want to get out of this byre. Is that why he’s upbeat?

Smugas

January 29, 2014 at 18:30

When I first got up to speed with the rangers story, the RTC version having gotten fed up with the official version, my immediate thought was “that’s a guy deliberately crashing the bus.” I have be honest, if this is more than bluster (and he has previous for that) my immediate gut reaction is exactly the same. The difference this time is, is he on the train, or is he on the platform? This is after all the mother of all squirrels, the one that all the dogs will chase and the wagons are guaranteed to circle against.

ecobhoy

January 29, 2014 at 18:36

blu says:
January 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm
==============================
ecobhoy, I’m sure you’re right about pzj but I think you’re being very kind to Giovanni the convicted fraudster with the lively imagination. If he was any good at it he’d have joined the gang in Govan.
==================================================
Used to love Giovanni’s capers – he could brighten the dullest of days. Total loon ball but amusing with it.

Martin

Having taken a look at Rangers Media to see just how well Alex Thomson’s latest blog went down, a simple summary would be – not well.

Among the calm and reasoned views that I found there it’s fair to say that the messenger got a little more attention than the message.

Alex Thomson’s blog as he said himself on twitter was ‘legaled’ prior to release. I have no idea if this process resulted in any alteration to the text, perhaps not.

The blog itself simply informs the reader that a source (presumably trusted) has passed on information regarding Craig Whyte’s claim on Rangers assets, overturning bans, mergers (a strange one) and the immanent likelihood of some legal movement in these matters.

(That’s not a great summary of the blog but links have already been posted to the full piece)

The piece naturally requires a caveat and Alex Thomson provides one “We’ll know if this is all just more bluster and hot air in the coming weeks, it appears”.

The fine gentlemen that post on Rangers Media have dismissed Craig Whyte’s claims with their irrefutable legal acumen and chastised Alex Thomson in the gentlest of terms for being so silly.

jean7brodie

January 29, 2014 at 19:01

neepheid says:
January 29, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Matthew Lindsay ‏@MattLindsay_ET 7h
In today’s @TheEveningTimes: Brazil legend Cafu says Lee Wallace has the potential to become the best full-back in the history of football.

From twitter, but I don’t think it’s a hoax. Unbelievable though. The SMSM are really on top form this week
———————————————————————–
It most certainly is a hoax Neepheid. Really funny one mind you. 😆

Giovanni

In respect of the re-emergence of Mr Whyte and his claim on the RIFC/TRFC assets I remembered a statement, which at the time I thought rather unusual, in the IPO Prospectus by Messrs DM Hall.

“ We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the Title Deeds of the subjects under valuation and, for the purposes of our valuation, we have assumed that the subjects are held under Title which is the equivalent of Heritable Ownership (formerly Feudal) unless otherwise stated as being subject to a Lease. We have further assumed that the properties are free from encumbrances, restrictions or outgoings of an onerous nature which would have a material impact on the value.”

I realise they’d only been asked to do a “desk top” valuation as they’d carried out an earlier full valuation but surely, under the circumstances, they’d have said “show us the deeds”?

NB. For the avoidance of doubt I am not that Giovanni. Nor am I in anyway connected with him

FIFA

January 29, 2014 at 19:26

Just had a look at the Notts Forrest Site and strangely no mention of Billy Davis bidding for Lee Wallace,thought it would merit a mention at least ,they have just signed a striker today and an out on loan defender has been recalled so there is a vacant position to be filled ,has the stalking horse got any more money to bid or is it just that ,52hrs and 35 min ,tick tock .

bad capt madman

January 29, 2014 at 20:20

I read something today, either here or on twitter, that CW claims involve the “ownership” of the SFA membership which was granted to Sevco as part of or possibly even before the 5 way agreement. Regardless of the other implications of the legalities of CG’s switcheroo or otherwise, does CW have a point? Did the SFA give the membership to CW’s company?

This does again bring the credibility of the SFA back into the spotlight. Did they do due diligence prior to granting the membership? Did they monitor / consider the implications of Sevco 1588 changing to Sevco Scotland with regard to the appropriateness of the membership and licensing? The drafts we’ve seen of the 5 Way Agreement give the impression of legalese and diligence, but I suspect that was all a front to give the appearance that the SFA were in fact doing some regulating, supervising or governance, and had no intention of doing anything that would jeopardise any version of a rangers being accepted into the association.

The implications of any successful claim or long standing case by CW must be a nightmare for those involved in promulgating the shenanigans at the governing body. The apparent disintegration of TRFC’s financials by their own actions is bad enough, but to face the prospect of admitting that they should not have been given a membership two seasons ago must surely force change at the SFA ( even if its just to avoid potential legal actions from all concerned).

So, for me, I’m in. I wish CW well in his endeavour to get justice! (and continuing in the Dragons Den vein, I’d want 30% of the company for my support).

campsiejoe

January 29, 2014 at 20:20

Auldheid says:
January 29, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Laughable is the only way to describe that “piece”
The author is obviously not aware that a Local Authority can designate any piece of ground in any way it pleases, as long as it complies with the Structure Plan, and that plan is approved by Holyrood
A so called Brownfield Site, by itself means nothing

As for suggesting, that as a leisure facility it should be open to the public is the ultimate in hypocrisy
He is obviously not aware that a condition of the Lottery Grant awarded to the dead club, for the construction of Auchenhowie, was that it should be available for public use
As I say the ultimate in hypocrisy or is it just wilful ignorance and stupidity

jean7brodie

Not The Huddle Malcontent

January 29, 2014 at 20:49

campsiejoe says:
January 29, 2014 at 8:20 pm

As for suggesting, that as a leisure facility it should be open to the public is the ultimate in hypocrisy
He is obviously not aware that a condition of the Lottery Grant awarded to the dead club, for the construction of Auchenhowie, was that it should be available for public use
As I say the ultimate in hypocrisy or is it just wilful ignorance and stupidity

=========================================================

was thinking about this and Wallaces’s need to cut costs at Sevco

if Murray Park can’t be sold to cut costs and/or bring in money then the nexxt obvious step is to turn it into a revenue generating facility

open it for 5-asides, corporate games, train with the team sessions, kiddy tournaments etc

I know DAFC used to make a pretty decent income from renting out East End park all the time when they had the plastic pitch, pretty sure a few bears would happily pay £60-70 an hour for their weekly game of fives on the “hallowed astro turf” of Moses Cooper Greig but definitely not MURRAY park!

Less transfer money. OK Why rely on that when everyone’s on 2 year or loan contracts. Our own fault.

Nothing in detail but I believe at the time I worked out the actual loss is about equal to the negative cost of playing in Europe. I could see most clubs engineering for 3rd rather than 2nd in SPL if a choice came up and a few trips to Scandinavia rather than the almost Far East in first week of July. Cheers EUFA. Only a matter of time before someone holds their hand up and says oops sorry all our first team aren’t signed yet.

Never mind its only equal for a year to 25% of Pretendygers monthly loss.

Still enough to make selling someone more urgent and then we re-enter the rebuild team in 2 weeks cycle for next year (and the 4th year in a row).

Note the no overdraft available bit. Pretendygers this will be your lot for the next 10 years also. No one lends to clubs who enter CVA never mind liquidate.

That’s reality folks!
===============================================================================
‘Well in the red again

By Firparkcorner
Updated Tuesday, 28th January 2014
Views: 1659

Motherwell FC lost £180,498 in the financial year that saw a second place finish in the SPL and a debut in the Champions League. The details have been made available to shareholders ahead of the club’s 108th AGM next month.

The directors’ report points to three factors as the main contributors to the loss.

There was an agreement to alter the distribution of the SPL’s commercial pot that included a substantial reduction in the prize money allocated to the runner up position but the club’s bonus deal with the football staff is not mirror that change.

The early cup exits proved to be costly. Although we had a share of the gate at Ibrox from the league Cup tie, the cut Aberdeen received from our home Scottish Cup clash was made on the basis that all spectators paid at the gate regardless that season tickets were valid. This benefit to season ticket holders appears to be under threat.

Transfer income fell below expectation.

The directors also express disappointment that no main sponsor has been found to replace the Clydesdale Bank. The effect on this season’s commercial distribution is clear.

Changes to the board over the year ended 31 May 2013 include the addition of Brian McCafferty and Graham Barnstaple as Well Society nominees and the departure of John Boyle(still the majority shareholder) and Andrew Lapping. Once again the club makes it clear that it operates “without any borrowing facilities or support of a benefactor” and that the success of the Society will be “critical to the long term sustainability of the football club”.

No doubt these issues and others will form the basis of the discussions that will take place at the AGM on Monday 17 February at Fir Park.

GeronimosCadillac

In respect of the re-emergence of Mr Whyte and his claim on the RIFC/TRFC assets I remembered a statement, which at the time I thought rather unusual, in the IPO Prospectus by Messrs DM Hall.

“ We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the Title Deeds of the subjects under valuation and, for the purposes of our valuation, we have assumed that the subjects are held under Title which is the equivalent of Heritable Ownership (formerly Feudal) unless otherwise stated as being subject to a Lease. We have further assumed that the properties are free from encumbrances, restrictions or outgoings of an onerous nature which would have a material impact on the value.”

I realise they’d only been asked to do a “desk top” valuation as they’d carried out an earlier full valuation but surely, under the circumstances, they’d have said “show us the deeds”?

NB. For the avoidance of doubt I am not that Giovanni. Nor am I in anyway connected with him
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is a loosely worded statement and I recall commenting on that at the time.

Instead of DM Hall stating they had made a series of “assumptions” they could have asked their client for confirmation and then they could have written something more convincing like ” RIFC have confirmed to us that they own the properties outright and there are no incumberences etc” instead of saying “we haven’t checked anything and you know what we didn’t even bother to ask”

TallBoy Poppy

“ We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the Title Deeds of the subjects under valuation and, for the purposes of our valuation, we have assumed that the subjects are held under Title which is the equivalent of Heritable Ownership (formerly Feudal) unless otherwise stated as being subject to a Lease. We have further assumed that the properties are free from encumbrances, restrictions or outgoings of an onerous nature which would have a material impact on the value.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————-

Cartuja on KdS (in a slightly kryptic way) was making enquries to this effect a couple of days ago. I remember that the first property I bought was subject to Feu Duty.(£14 per annum to some toff who’s ancestors had robbed it from some other toff) I owned the property but not the land it was built on. A quick look at the legislation to replace it indicated that landowners needed to make some kind of registration/claim for compensation in return for giving up the rights to the land. As it appears that the land below Ibrox was subject to such a Feu in the past, there may be something worth looking into.

Castofthousands

January 29, 2014 at 22:08

Campbellsmoney says:
January 29, 2014 at 5:30 pm

“castofthousands – bet you wish you hadn’t asked now”
—————————-
I’m glad I asked and glad you answered. I’m disappointed I still don’t fully understand but that is a measure of my knowledge rather than your explanation. What is important is that YOU understand and I suspect others will get the gist. If this ever becomes an issue then the resulting debate will make all clear I suspect.

Aquinas

Can anyone find the Lotto piece informing RFC to open to the public?
I read it years ago, RFC PR machine seem to have erased all reference from Google.

I can’t believe Sevco fans are looking at Celtic land deals when their new Rangers are on the verge of being wrapped up in legal claims, administration+ and unknown Hedge Funds are owners!!!

Sevco fans at least put up some sort of fan power protest or funding events! Waiting for another Bank of Scotland funded ‘leader’ ain’t happening.

sDM should be made an unfit person to hold a position at any football club (ok or clumpany) just to make a point, why won’t this happen? sDM must have ‘stuff’ on a lot of football people, EBTs? photos? ……

Englandshire

January 29, 2014 at 22:23

bad capt madman on January 29, 2014 at 8:20 pm

I read something today, either here or on twitter, that CW claims involve the “ownership” of the SFA membership which was granted to Sevco as part of or possibly even before the 5 way agreement. Regardless of the other implications of the legalities of CG’s switcheroo or otherwise, does CW have a point? Did the SFA give the membership to CW’s company?

This does again bring the credibility of the SFA back into the spotlight. Did they do due diligence prior to granting the membership? Did they monitor / consider the implications of Sevco 1588 changing to Sevco Scotland with regard to the appropriateness of the membership and licensing? The drafts we’ve seen of the 5 Way Agreement give the impression of legalese and diligence, but I suspect that was all a front to give the appearance that the SFA were in fact doing some regulating, supervising or governance, and had no intention of doing anything that would jeopardise any version of a rangers being accepted into the association.

The implications of any successful claim or long standing case by CW must be a nightmare for those involved in promulgating the shenanigans at the governing body. The apparent disintegration of TRFC’s financials by their own actions is bad enough, but to face the prospect of admitting that they should not have been given a membership two seasons ago must surely force change at the SFA ( even if its just to avoid potential legal actions from all concerned).

So, for me, I’m in. I wish CW well in his endeavour to get justice! (and continuing in the Dragons Den vein, I’d want 30% of the company for my support).
====================================

It has to be noted that CG’s switcheroo happened because although initially Sevco5088 was going to buy the assets from RFC 2012 (NIL), it had to be a Scottish company that runs a football club. Therefore Sevco Scotland was set up for that purpose (later renamed to TRFC).

CG then used Sevco Scotland to shaft CW (instead of Sevco5088) and how this omnishambles started.

Hopefully my understanding is correct. If not I shall stand on the naughty step

Not The Huddle Malcontent

January 29, 2014 at 22:38

could the threat of Whyte returning be the catalyst for moving the property assets to RIFC PLC – to protect them from falling into Whytes hands?

RIFC buy them from TRFC in lieu of monies owed to RIFC, that leaves TRFC as tenants – no assets, no debts. CW then takes TRFC/Secvo Scotland to court – even if he wins, they have nothing. He can force admin/liquidation – at which point, RIFC plc sit holding some properties waiting for the “preferred bidders” to save TRFC to be successful with their CVA.

They will need somewhere to play……wonder if there will be a suitable facility available to use for games and training?

ianagain

January 29, 2014 at 22:47

It would appear clear that Green attempted to “novate” Whyte from 5088 and clear everything away as the previous poster had it “while the train was in the tunnel” into his own Sevco Scotland vehicle.
Hence the restoration of the documents relating Whyte to 5088. Despite Chuckles attempt to have them removed.
So in my mind he has a case but probably not the bunce to direct m’learned friends. His previous litigation backers Worthington appear to have hit the skids.
Always going to re appear this one. A real switcheroo took place.

TallBoy Poppy

January 29, 2014 at 23:11

Aquinas says:
January 29, 2014 at 10:22 pm

To Campsiejoe.
Can anyone find the Lotto piece informing RFC to open to the public?
——————————————————————————————–
No, but I can remember a piece about Minty’s Edinburgh rugger pal being able to borrow it at the drop of a bowler hat. I’ll try to dig it out.

What has to be remembered is that he is now accepting that the Celtic site is designated Greenfield. Originally his argument was it was housebuilding land so worth a fortune but sold cheap to Celtic as part of a corrupt plot carried out by Celtic and Glasgow Health Board.

I think he now realises having read or heard about my posts that he’s Xmas-crackered on that argument so now he’s off on another tangent. He’s made basic mistake after basic mistake and is either an idiot or a liar or a combination of both.

I’ll do a post tomorrow and now a bit more demolition work. But I had to laugh when I came in there and had a quick look at his site. He doesn’t seem to realise that on a large site like Lennox Castle you can have a number of different land uses.

As usual he displays the Bear ignorance of history because the area started off as agricultural land and was then bought by a toff who built the Castle and created an estate by landscaping the grounds and also creating extensive parklands.

Then the estate was sold to the NHS who built Lennox Castle Hospital there and when that closed circa 2000 the vast majority of the hospital buildings were demolished by the Health Board for sdafety and security reasons. The staff accomodation wan’t demolished and neither – if I remember correctly – were some lodge houses.

So there has been an ever-changing scenario of different uses and planning consents going on there for a helluva long time. And it’s still happening. But for him to think that a ‘brownfield’ site can’t be turned over to Greenbelt is quite wierd. He seems to be losing the plot but watched the game had a few pints and I’m heading to bed 😉

bad capt madman

January 29, 2014 at 23:33

Englandshire…
You are right about the switcheroo issue, but my point was, as CW may now be alledging, is that in addition to or regardless of the switcheroo of company assets, the SFA agreed the membership with CWs company. Even if this is the case, could CG have also ‘novated’ that membership?, assuming that the transfer membership is presumably based on more than just someone saying, something along the lines of ” yes, you gave Sevco 1588 a membership but this is Sevco Scotland now, so we’ll keep that too, thanks, & don’t worry about Craigy, because he’s Sevco”.

My main issue about it all is the SFA’s conduct in all this. Governance my arse.

ecobhoy

In respect of the re-emergence of Mr Whyte and his claim on the RIFC/TRFC assets I remembered a statement, which at the time I thought rather unusual, in the IPO Prospectus by Messrs DM Hall.

“ We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the Title Deeds of the subjects under valuation and, for the purposes of our valuation, we have assumed that the subjects are held under Title which is the equivalent of Heritable Ownership (formerly Feudal) unless otherwise stated as being subject to a Lease. We have further assumed that the properties are free from encumbrances, restrictions or outgoings of an onerous nature which would have a material impact on the value.”

I realise they’d only been asked to do a “desk top” valuation as they’d carried out an earlier full valuation but surely, under the circumstances, they’d have said “show us the deeds”?

NB. For the avoidance of doubt I am not that Giovanni. Nor am I in anyway connected with him
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is a loosely worded statement and I recall commenting on that at the time.

Instead of DM Hall stating they had made a series of “assumptions” they could have asked their client for confirmation and then they could have written something more convincing like ” RIFC have confirmed to us that they own the properties outright and there are no incumberences etc” instead of saying “we haven’t checked anything and you know what we didn’t even bother to ask”
=======================================================
I remember a way back 2011 maybe that there was a lot of talk that the ground at Auchenhowie was actually on a very long lease from Kelvinside Academy to Rangers. I dismissed it at the time because I couldn’t believe that Murray would spend £14 million or whatever building Murray Park if he didn’t own the actual land.

And it flitted back into my head the first time I read the DM Hall report but again I didn’t do anything as there was so much else going on. Maybe the Bear Land ‘Experts’ could check things out 😥

Englandshire

It has to be noted that CG’s switcheroo happened because although initially Sevco5088 was going to buy the assets from RFC 2012 (NIL), it had to be a Scottish company that runs a football club.
————

Sez who? It’s not a rule I’m aware of.
I’ve always seen this as just an excuse to ‘explain’ the setting up of Sevco Scotland, whose real purpose was to cut Whyte out of the deal.
——————————–
Apologies. My brain doesn’t appear to be working tonight.

Paulmac2

indy14

It has to be noted that CG’s switcheroo happened because although initially Sevco5088 was going to buy the assets from RFC 2012 (NIL), it had to be a Scottish company that runs a football club.
————

Sez who? It’s not a rule I’m aware of.
I’ve always seen this as just an excuse to ‘explain’ the setting up of Sevco Scotland, whose real purpose was to cut Whyte out of the deal.
____________
Right, I must be a bit stupid. Someone please ,link this up for me, tell me this scenario isn’t possible cause I must be going mad……
1. Who got D&P preferred bidder status when RFC were in Admin? To my understanding it was Sevco 5088? – IF I am correct then,
2. Sevco 5088 had to have agreement with D&P to create or agree a transfer of the assets to a Scottish Company from RFC to Sevco 5088 – now known as Sevco Scotland…..had to be linked in my opinion, HAD TO BE….despite all the Bravado pish and Bullsh!t
3. Assuming the above being correct, TGEF is up to his well tanned t!ts in this and always has been, and for me the pic of Green and his Chateau was a coded message to TGEF, saying “cheers all yours Sweetheart” to TGEF.
TGEF appearing back ominously now is a comical as Murrays retractable pitch, TGEF NEVER left, has always pulled the strings, is it just me who feels TGEF spent what was it 4 months doing due diligence, working on EVERY detail of this lose out out to a wee gnaff like Green, sorry don’t buy it and never have

Podcasts

Recent Comments

SFM

The Scottish Football Monitor

"There's a lot of ignorance out there"

SFM an online community whose members are drawn from fans of all Scottish Football clubs.
Its overriding goal is to see sporting integrity restored to paramountcy in Scottish Football.
To help achieve that SFM will seek to ask the questions that the mainstream media consistently fail to ask of the authorities, who in turn consistently fail to govern the sport in accordance with their own rules.
SFM is funded by donations from its members, and has no links to any football club or other organisation.